Every taxpayer dollar sent to any university or private entity should be closely scrutinized. In the case of the billions sent to Harvard University and other elite schools, the probe being imposed by the Trump administration is long overdue.
The research grants which make up the majority of Harvard’s non-medical federal funding, notoriously lack transparency, allow for use of funds for supposed “indirect costs” that go almost unfettered to the University, and are the type of grants that are not available to most other colleges and universities in the country.
When the Harvard Crimson reports that more than three-quarters of Harvard’s faculty self-identify as “left” or “far left” and 65 percent of Harvard graduates identify as “progressive” (only 12 percent identify as “conservative”), the level of federal funding from a progressive-leaning federal bureaucracy rightly raises concerns about “self-dealing” in the eyes of a newly elected conservative administration.
With famous liberal graduates like former Presidents John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama and liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, it is no wonder that Harvard is considered the intellectual center of the failed progressivism that is an offense to much of what was rejected by voters in this last election. President Trump is right to view Harvard with some distrust if not disdain. We, and most conservatives, agree on this.
Throw in the lackluster response to the antisemitism running rampant on Ivy League and other college campuses, and you have more than enough reason to take a second look at the taxpayer funding given to these institutions.
But, this disdain and scrutiny should not bleed over into any consideration of challenging Harvard’s tax-exempt status. While President Trump’s mention of removing Harvard’s favored tax status could just be a part of a broader negotiating strategy (three dimensional chess), it would set a dangerous precedent.
Such a move, without question, would put Liberty University — Virginia’s largest University and 18 other Christian colleges in the Commonwealth — square in the crosshairs of some future progressive President who would use Liberty’s policies on homosexuality and gender as justification to end their tax status.
It would also open up schools like Patrick Henry College in Loudoun County, who don’t take any federal funds and don’t even allow their students to use federal student aid, to the scrutiny of future unfriendly administrations. In fact, the unprecedented penalties imposed on Liberty University (and Grand Canyon University) by the Biden Department of Education are a sign that this is a very real risk.
Politicizing tax exemptions sets a terrible precedent, as is best seen in Governor Youngkin’s ongoing battle to prevent the General Assembly from imposing their ideological views on institutions in the Commonwealth. Currently sitting on Governor Youngkin’s desk is legislation to remove the tax-exempt status of several Confederate groups in Virginia like the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
Governor Youngkin vetoed identical legislation last year, and has a little over one week left to decide if he will use his veto pen again this year. Governor Youngkin’s veto language from last year is masterful, and should provide insight to the Trump administration in their handling of Harvard.
Far from avoiding the controversial history of the organizations that led to the push to remove their tax exemption, Governor Youngkin instead acknowledges that some groups getting the tax exemption are clearly offensive in our current cultural discourse. Specifically, the Governor wrote:
Among these [tax exempt] groups, some organizations have titles offensive in contemporary discourse, such as outdated references to the intellectually or developmentally disabled; some organizations reference political affiliations and engage in political contributions like the Ocean View Democratic and Social Club, and others are historical societies whose lineage is connected to contentious periods such as the Civil War, illustrated by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.
However, Governor Youngkin brilliantly defended his veto by citing concerns about the precedent of targeting specific groups, even those we may find offensive. Again, in the Governor’s words:
Narrowly targeting specific organizations to gain or lose such tax exemptions sets an inappropriate precedent…Choosing winners and losers is imprudent and undermines the tax system’s fairness. (bold added for emphasis)
President Trump’s threat to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, while arising from a different context, raises questions about the relationship between political power, free speech, and tax policy.
Both situations underscore the complexities of determining when and how tax-exempt status should be granted or revoked. Tax exemption is often seen as a privilege that society extends to organizations that serve a public good. However, the definition of “public good” can be contested, particularly when it comes to organizations that promote controversial or divisive views. Thus, great care and only the most extreme situations should warrant revocation.
With an ideologically divided society, decisions like Governor Youngkin’s veto and President Trump’s threat raise fundamental questions about the role of government in shaping public discourse and promoting social values while preserving fundamental freedoms — even the freedom to believe things that some may find offensive.
While the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Bob Jones University v. United States has precedence on the right of the IRS to use a compelling public interest in maintaining or revoking tax exemptions (even over claims of religious freedom), one wonders if this decision wasn’t partly responsible for the politicization and unfair auditing of right-leaning organizations during the Obama administration.
These cases raise concerns about the potential for future political leaders to use the threat of revoking tax-exempt status as a tool to suppress views they find objectionable. This could have a chilling effect on academic and religious freedom and lead to a politically motivated censorship of ideas. The long-term implications of such actions could be profound, potentially reshaping the landscape of higher education and undermining the principles of free inquiry and open debate.
To preserve freedom, Governor Youngkin should veto the bill targeting the tax exemption of confederate groups, and President Trump should drop his threats to Harvard’s tax exemption — no matter how deserving of scrutiny or public ridicule one thinks these organizations may deserve.
Derrick Max is the President and CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].